Ramon, et Listers,
You may know much better than I what was in the minds and hearts of those
who adopted the "conflict of interest" by-law Ramon. However, I have been
witness to several people who sadly fell under Barry's spell, which was
aided in no small measure by the mantle of respectability that his position
in CAT bestowed. While all who knew him would probably agree that Barry was
"one of a kind", on the other hand I find it hard to believe that anyone
involved with Tigers as their livelihood would NOT be in a serious conflict
of interest situation as an officer of CAT. Certainly in particular with
respect to CAT's major involvement in replacement Tiger parts as well as
various policy decisions, it's hard to imagine anyone not putting their own
economic self interests above those of the CAT membership. Moreover, I feel
the problem is aggravated by the apathy that apparently exists among the
CAT membership in the L.A. area. A combination of apathy and greed would
seem a sure recipe for major mischief. I would hope there would be some way
for the CAT organization to benefit from the participation of those like
Steve and Dan and even draw in some of the other LA "Pros" like Dale A.
without having to hand over the reigns. Sort of like having a civilian in
charge of the armed forces you know. Kinda keeps things from going over the
top.
Bob
At 07:59 PM 12/7/98 -0800, Ramon Spontelli wrote:
>> I believe the by-law regarding running a Tiger related business
>> vis-a-vis holding an office in CAT goes back to a very unfortunate
>> experience with a gentleman by the name of Barry Greenberg (sp?) who
>> leveraged his position as president of CAT to promote his Tiger
>> restoration business. This conflict of interest was aggravated by the
>> almost universal dissatisfaction of his customers, which in turn
>> reflected badly on CAT.
>
>That is exactly what you are supposed to believe, Bob. That's the pile
>they fed us when they adopted the "conflict of interest" clause. In
>reality, it was not needed then, as it is not needed now.
>
>ARTICLE III -- DIRECORS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
>Director may resign, or may be removed with or without cause, by a vote
>of the Board of Directors at any time . . .
>
>ARTICLE IV -- OFFICERS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
>Officer may resign, or may be removed with or without cause by a vote of
>the Board of Directors at any time . . .
>
>The C.A.T Board of Directors could have removed Barry Greenberg "with or
>without cause" and "at any time." That's the way it was then, and
>that's the way it is now. The conflict of interest clause was
>completely unnecessary, and it was implemented for reasons that were
>unrelated to Mr. Greenberg, his restoration business, and his
>association with C.A.T., which had ended long before the
>conflict-of-interest-clause scam.
>
>Ramon
>
Robert L. Palmer
Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com
|